Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Marine Personnel Carrier Program. Where we're at...

Note:  Still a little "fired" up but we'll proceed anyway.

The Marine Personnel Carrier Program had a major turning point.  At the last Modern Day Marine, BAE brought a mock-up of their version of the SUPER AV out into the light and it was the buzz of the event.

Before that unveiling, whispers of why are we even doing an MPC when the Amphibious Combat Vehicle is suppose to be an affordable alternative to the canceled EFV were flowing and gaining voice.

But like I said.  BAE shocked the world and put forward the SUPER AV.

The conversation changed.

Suddenly thoughts of totally revamping the amphibious assault fleet gained traction.  If the MPC could meet mobility goals...If the MPC could meet swim requirements...If the MPC was actually cheap enough to buy in large quantities then we might have a game changer.

Of all the competitors, BAE and Lockheed Martin seemed ready for the challenge.  Sorry ST but I just don't include the Terrex...I would be shocked if it actually won.  Shocked and trying my best to find out who got bribed.

Which brings me to General Dynamics.

Grandma said not to burn bridges.  

The Marine Corps taught me how to blow them up.

Time to do this the Marine Corps way.

General Dynamics is in a fetal position on the floor begging the bad man to make it stop.


So let me get this straight.  An organization that is a world beater, maker of what they claim is the most powerful tank in the western world, is so secretive that they can't identify to a minor blogger that has a pretty strong focus on armored vehicle projects the vehicle in their portfolio that they're going to present to the Marine Corps for testing?

I mean seriously?


I could get a hold of some contacts and get a pic when it rolls through the gates at Pendleton, Lejeune, Ft AP Hill or Quantico but that just don't seem right.

I would expect them to have enough balls...enough fortitude to realize that at this point in the game it doesn't freaking matter.

But they don't see it that way.

Congratulations BAE and Lockheed...I really believe you guys scared the living day lights out of one of your competitors.  Good luck to you both.  To General Dynamics.  Man up...


  1. You know what? GD is really betting against MPC and ACV given current fiscal reality. Neither programs are likely to survive (let's just be honest with ourselves here). USMC will end up buying more LAVs or go ahead with yet another round of SLEP to fill the gap. Why spending your own money on a program that facing a great deal of uncertainty? Ground vehicles are expandable and most vulnerable to face budget cutting axes.

    1. well if they are then they should state it clearly. i don't care about the inside baseball that ALL these companies play when it comes to figuring out Corps spending priorities etc. what annoys is that we're at O'dark thirty, the balloon is about to go up and they act like its a state secret what vehicle is going to be put on the trailer and hauled to the testing site.

  2. I'm still not excited about MPC and what exactly about Super AV is that impressive? I realize it's listed as being able to carry 12 dismounts but that's with only leaving the driver inside. How many dismounts with a vehicle commander, his weapon turret/RWS, and the added internal ammo? Even if we want to pretend it's 11 is this really what the Corps requires? Didn't the Corps think long and hard and decide it required 17 dismounts, or a reinforced rifle squad?

    If the doctrine suddenly makes it OK to split up the rifle platoon among 5-6 armored infantry carriers how does one explain the requirements for ACV? Assuming 5 Super AV's can carry a rifle platoon how many for a company? Might the 15 AAV's in a MEU require 25 Super AV's? If that works great but does it?

    From my perspective the Corps made a mistake conceptually inventing MPC. Originally the plan was for a light, medium, and heavy infantry carrier. MPC was the medium and EFV the heavy. Personally I don't think 3 different vehicles ever made sense for the Corps. I'd argue that right now AAV is a medium infantry carrier. If the Corps requires an IFV in EFV/ACV then how does MPC make sense, especially when you need about 2 (maybe 5/3rds) MPC's to do the same job as 1 ACV? What does ACV look like as an APC?

    As an aside Sol I keep forgetting to suggest that you consider putting a caption under the picture you put on the top of the site. Occasionally, like the OV-10 competition aircraft, I might want to look it up and it's easier with a caption telling me what it is lol.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.